The case involves a dispute between MKE Ankaragücü Spor Kulubu (the Club) and a professional football player (S.) regarding unpaid remuneration under their employment contracts for the 2004/2005 season. The Club appealed a decision by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) dated 4 April 2007, which ruled in favor of the Player. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The dispute centered on multiple contracts signed between the Club and the Player, including the official TFF Uniform Professional Player’s Contract and two additional employment contracts, which were not registered with the Turkish Football Federation (TFF). The Player claimed unpaid amounts totaling USD 154,534, including match fees, salary, a bonus, and a "good service" payment, while the Club asserted it had paid USD 181,012 plus fines totaling USD 66,959, resulting in total payments of USD 247,971. The CAS panel emphasized the burden of proof, requiring each party to substantiate their claims with relevant evidence. The Player provided documentation supporting his claims, while the Club's position contained inconsistencies, such as initially stating payments of USD 181,012 before adjusting the total to include fines. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in football, particularly when multiple agreements exist, and underscores the importance of clear, registered contracts to avoid conflicts. The DRC found the Club’s financial claims inconsistent and unsupported by sufficient evidence, ruling the Club owed the Player USD 154,034 in unpaid remuneration and dismissing the fines due to their excessive nature and lack of procedural fairness. The Club appealed to CAS, submitting additional evidence, including original payment receipts and translations. The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction based on FIFA Statutes and the CAS Code, with both parties agreeing to this through the order of procedure. The applicable law was determined to be FIFA regulations and Swiss law, as no specific choice-of-law clause existed in the contracts. The Panel rejected the Club’s attempts to introduce late evidence due to a lack of exceptional circumstances justifying the delay. The Panel also refused to consider documents submitted without proper translations or those not originally part of the FIFA file. The dispute centered on three key issues: the validity of payment documents submitted by the Club, the legitimacy of disciplinary sanctions imposed on the Player, and the contractual conditions for a USD 50,000 payment tied to the Player's participation in 26 matches. The Panel found the Club failed to provide convincing evidence that the Player was properly informed about the disciplinary proceedings or the decision to impose a fine of USD 22,000. The Panel also noted inconsistencies in the documentation, such as varying amounts in different records and a torn receipt allegedly signed by the Player, which raised doubts about the Club's claims. Regarding the USD 50,000 bonus, the dispute centered on two versions of the employment contract. The Player submitted a version stating the bonus was due if he played in 26 matches, regardless of whether he started. The Club submitted a revised version requiring him to start in 26 matches. The Panel concluded the Club failed to substantiate its claims regarding both the disciplinary fine and the contractual bonus. The decision underscores the importance of proper documentation, procedural fairness in disciplinary actions, and the burden of proof in contractual disputes. The Club's inability to provide sufficient evidence led to the rejection of its arguments. The CAS dismissed the Club's appeal and upheld the earlier decision by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber, ordering the Club to pay the Player the outstanding amount of USD 154,034. All other claims and counterclaims were also dismissed, bringing the matter to a final resolution. The outcome confirms the validity of the initial decision and rejects any further legal challenges or disputes arising from it.